I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.

The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.

Or

Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”

At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.

The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.

Conclusion

I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

2,004 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar”

Goran: “Let us stick to one issue. And one issue only. The presence of Anna Ardin during Sofia’s interview.” I think, if my memory serves me right, that you were previously referring to eight apparent errors, and then four. Why now focus on one? Are you more interested in proving Craig wrong on at least one point than in substantiating your (backed-up) analysis of events as a whole? I do hope not.

Personally, if I were a lawyer, I would be very interested in this:
“Because all of a sudden we were two women with a statement about the same man, it became [a matter for investigation] and thus became a formal complaint, even though we had not filed a complaint.” And so it became a complaint”

Which seems to suggest that neither woman had come with the intention of ‘filing a complaint’.

‘In any investigation, my Bunter, it is most damnably dangerous to have a theory.’
‘I have heard you say so, my lord.’
‘Confound you – you know it as well as I do. What is wrong with the doctor’s theories, Bunter?’
‘You wish me to reply, my lord, that he only sees the facts which fit into the theory.’
‘Thought-reader!’ exclaimed Lord Peter bitterly.
(Dorothy L Sayers, The footsteps that ran.)

Goran “But before I send I want you to give just one of your numerous sources” – tchah, man, just get on with it. Stop trying to play. This is not play, this is serious. It involves real people and real lives. Put what you ‘know’ in the public domain, in a timeline everyone can understand, with references, or leave it, please.

“Goran, why, out of interest (not a loaded question) were you hoping to find info that Julian Assange was guilty?”

In May 2010 I started my blog. I want Sweden’s sex legislation to be similar to England’s, Canada’s, Australia’s ….. It has to be based on consent. That’s why I started. In my work I started to follow all sex cases. To find out what the police, prosecutors, courts and read a lot of judgments.

When the Assange case exploded it sounded strange. How come two women at the same time accuses one man for rape. That is not common. When I learned more about the case, he stayed in one of the women’s flat I started to think a false accusation was likely.

If it was a false accusation I knew that my job would be tougher since there would be very many men saying, look, all accusations are false. I hoped that I could find information that Julian was guilty so I should worry about my personal campaign. When I found the deleted tweets I thought Anna was crazy to delete them. When I tricked her into deleting them a second time I knew something was right. There was no reason for Anna to delete the tweets a second time since I was the only one that had seen them.

And from then I discovered that the interviews were not recorded etc. That the police did not do a good job. Since then I have discovered that is common.

What I also have to tell you I have been looking everywhere to try to find that something is fishy. I haven’t found anything.

I can also tell you that I think I know the case reasonably well. I have never ever thought that people would come up with so much rubbish. And the claim that Anna was present during the interview is such rubbish.

“Målsägande var ej på plats då anmälan skrevs in” appears to indicate that Ardin wasn’t at the police station at 16.31, which is the time the complaint was registered (skrevs in) according to page 8 ofhttp://info.publicintelligence.net/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf
(I suppose you got the time 18.02 from the upper right corner of the first document, but that’s not when the complaint was registered.)

Isn’t there at least a possiblility that Linda Wassgren mistakenly thought Ardin had left when in fact she had joined Wilén and Krans in the interview room at 16.21? Or some other plausible explanation. Even statements in police reports may need verification.

I think, if my memory serves me right, that you were previously referring to eight apparent errors, and then four. Why now focus on one? Are you more interested in proving Craig wrong on at least one point than in substantiating your (backed-up) analysis of events as a whole? I do hope not.

I know that Craig making 8 false claims. He has not responded until now. He said I got one date wrong no big deal. Now I asked him to prove just one thing, Anna’s presence. Since I know his wrong on this it is easy. But it takes time since he does not respond.

He is trying to crawl out the window by asking me to make a time-line instead of him giving me one of his “numerous sources”.

He made a gigantic blunder by picking up Johan line.

I have learned in this case that people are not open to facts when their brains are closed in opinion. Hopefully when Craig sees that he is way wrong he will open up and listen. He is far from it now.

You have seen the documents that proves that Anna was not present during the interview. Fine. I’ll explain the events sep post.

Is it possible that Anna was in the room with Sofia during interview? Yes if you believe in conspiracies and that pigs can fly. Then everything is possible. I would say not possible from real life experience.

I don’t know if you read the sex, lies, no videotape article. It explains all these details and at what time Anna said the key words that Craig incorrectly thinks is proof of Anna’s presence in the interview room. The link is here. I know it is a f-g long article but I tried to put all the interviews and all the events into one article.

Oh, just read this: “He is trying to crawl out the window by asking me to make a time-line instead of him giving me one of his “numerous sources”.

No, I’m also asking you to make a timeline, in the interests of good journalism and public information. I’m not so interested in proving Craig wrong, and more interested (though rather squeamishly) in the demonstrable facts. If you have this information I think it is your duty to publish it, with sources, and I think the one thing you can be sure of, of Craig, is that he will publish it here, whether he agrees with it or not.

I appreciate that it has been a long and horrible journey for you and that the very last thing anyone wants to do with their time is wallow in data about other people’s condoms and who did what to whom, and how, and if you were utterly sick of the whole thing I could understand it. But maybe one last sketching out of the issue, since you have come so far, might be both cathartic and useful – and then you could put it to rest.

I discovered a mistake
When Linda Wassgren at 18.02 were closing the document and writes a that the plaintiff was not informed bla bla
The reason was that the plaintiff was not present.
Linda Wassgren states that she wrote that comment 17:45.
So Anna left before 17:45
I have earlier said 18:02

Julian was arrested in absentia 17:00
I think it is most possible that Anna stayed until then

Both you and Craig agree that Assange is probably innocent of the allegations laid against him, at least those from AA. So why is it so important that you have him transform his theory into a facsimile of yours? You have your own blog and yet you come here to peddle your theory in competition to Craig’s. Why? This blog, yours and the intergoogle everywhere represents a more or less free market of ideas. What is so deficient on your blog, besides the comments, that you must smother this blog with your own version?

Technicolour, and everybody else that is interested. A very important excercise

Goran “But before I send I want you to give just one of your numerous sources” – tchah, man, just get on with it. Stop trying to play. This is not play, this is serious. It involves real people and real lives. Put what you ‘know’ in the public domain, in a timeline everyone can understand, with references, or leave it, please.

I’ve been thinking about a time-line and I have come to the conclusion that is not going to help you. Not at all. I’ll explain it like this. If you cannot evaluate and interpret correctly what is in a written document no time-line will help. A time-line will just tell in what order events happened (events described in written documents). To understand a time-line it starts with the a correct interpretation of documents. The time-line is secondary. It is not until you can understand one document correctly it is important to look at another. I know this can sound like mouthful, especially from me, but bear with me.

In order to help you to see my point and make you understand the importance of the interpretation I have taken Johan’s comment from 13 Sep, 2012 – 11:55 pm as an example. What is interesting with these two paragraphs is that Craig and I make two very different interpretations. Craig says the text “does seem to indicate very plainly that Anna WAS in the room when Sofia told police her story – I can see no other possible interpretation.” Meaning that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview.

My interpration is that the two paragraphs does not prove that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview. I say Craig makes an incorrect interpretation. And his words I can see no other possible interpretation.” shows the magnitude of the problem. Craig and I can look at just two paragraphs and come to completely opposite conclusions. I know I am right and I think Craig feels the same. Now I know we can’t both be right. But we can both be wrong.

I can guarantee you that the facts are hidden in the two paragraphs. The question is how to decipher the text and get the facts out. First is Johan’s own comment.

I have no idea if Anna was in the room while Sofia’s statement was taken, but witness Donald Boström tells an interesting story about the interaction going on at the police station:

I think we can all agree that Donald Boström tells an interesting story. Here are the two paragraphs. To help you get the information out I will ask you some questions afterwards.

Then Anna rang again and said, “Now we have been to the police and Sofia told her story; and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence.” This is exactly word-for-word, as I recall what she said. Aha, I said, and what was that sentence? Well, the sentence was: ”I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar”, said Anna. And then she told me that part about the condom, so that’s why I thought that it was true.

I don’t know anything about police technicalities, but then Anna said: “Because all of a sudden we were two women with a statement about the same man, it became [a matter for investigation] and thus became a formal complaint, even though we had not filed a complaint.” And so it became a complaint.

First my comment. The interview with Donald Boström is the most important of the witnesses in my view. He comes across as open and he wants to help the police to understand. He gives background information freely since he understands what information the police needs in order to understand. Johann Wahlström’s and Julian Assange’s interviews are very different. They tend to hide information as if they were afraid. The sentence that Anna Ardin utters here is key to understanding the case. So this is a really good example. You will learn to extract information and gain a better understanding of the case if you work on this one. The Swedish original is better but I think this is good enough.

What information do you think is important? Is it in the first paragraph or the second? Explain why.

Do you get information in what room Anna Ardin was when she uttered the words?

Does the text reveal at what stage in the visit the words are uttered? (Just as the women arrived, after they been questioned individually, while taking the complaints, during the Sofia Wilén’s interview)

What had happened before Anna Ardin uttered the words?

What do you think happened afterwards at the police station?

I think have helped you too much now. It took me a long time to figure this out. Work on these two paragraphs and tell me, is Craig right or am I right.

If you are having trouble I will help you along the way but it is very important that you do work yourself because it will help you understand what all the other documents really say.

Both you and Craig agree that Assange is probably innocent of the allegations laid against him, at least those from AA. So why is it so important that you have him transform his theory into a facsimile of yours? You have your own blog and yet you come here to peddle your theory in competition to Craig’s. Why? This blog, yours and the intergoogle everywhere represents a more or less free market of ideas. What is so deficient on your blog, besides the comments, that you must smother this blog with your own version?

I understand your question. And I agree that everybody is entitled to their opinion. I really don’t care if you think the moon is made out of cheese.

But this case is a legal matter. Real people are involved. Even if I think Julian Assange has made many stupid mistakes I do not believe he’s enjoying sitting in the Embassy of Ecuador rather to be free. There is also something I like about the idea of WikiLeaks.

I do believe in simple things. If you can get out of a prison by pressing a button I advise people to press the button. I think it is a waste of time to pay loads of money for banging your head against the wall.

On the surface it looks like Craig and I agree. True. Anna Ardin is likely making a false allegation. But Craig basis his opinion on made up facts, gossip and conspiracy theories. If you seriously believe that Anna Ardin was present at Sofia Wilén’s interview you must believe there is foul play involved. I do not think it helps to make Assange even more scared. I can honestly say there is no foul play. There is no set up. That is just the picture his lawyers and supporters have invented. It is all imagined fears. I understand that is almost impossible to believe.

If you say Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws you make people believe they laws are against men. That men are treated unfairly. Making Assange even more scared. Our sex laws are favoring men in a very unfair way. That is why I want them changed. I know this because I’ve studied them for years. Would you describe rape laws in England as super ultra radical third wave feminist? Don’t think so. But they are compared to ours. You just don’t know.

One question for you. Imagine a 15 year old girl on the run from a foster-family. She ends up at Central Station in Stockholm (close to Klara Närpolisstation). Exhausted, hungry and without money. She meets three men and a woman that after a conversation says, “You can get a room in our flat”. After arriving in the men’s flat they give her a drink. Shortly afterwards one man forcibly rapes her. She screams and fights back and is beaten. When the first man is finished number two comes into her room. She is frightened and tired and lets the second man having sex with her without her fighting back. Then the third man is in the door. She is just too tired to resist.

After the men are finished she manages to send a text message to a friend that alerts the police. After tracking her mobile the police breaks the door in and rescues the girl. That is the scenario.

The police investigates, prosecutors get involved and the case goes to trial. What do you think was the outcome of the trial and what do you think the men were sentenced to?
Remember we have astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws.

What if the same happened in England? What would be the verdict?

I am nothing more than a fucking loud mouthed troll that believes that if you guys really understand this case and the extradition laws you might help a poor sod get out of an Embassy. And I think that Craig is important in the process. But when I read most of the comments I must say I think I am only dreaming.

I had the same belief when I volunteered to be a witness. I have never seen so much ignorance in my life. Never. In high up Assange places. The world seems to be filled with naked Emperors. A kid like me have to scream at the top of my voice and say “Enough is enough”, “the Emperors are all naked.”

You are getting a better time-line than you than you think but you have to work for it.

No, I’m also asking you to make a timeline, in the interests of good journalism and public information. I’m not so interested in proving Craig wrong, and more interested (though rather squeamishly) in the demonstrable facts. If you have this information I think it is your duty to publish it, with sources, and I think the one thing you can be sure of, of Craig, is that he will publish it here, whether he agrees with it or not.

I wrote a comment, 14 Sep, 2012 – 2:30 am, that I think is important. I was thinking about why is it that Craig and I can come to fundamentally different conclusions looking at a text that is only two paragraphs long. And I think I know the answer. It is either reading the words or the context (I don’t know if that makes sense in English)

If we cannot agree on how to interpret 2 paragraphs there is no way in hell that we can agree on how to interpret hundreds of pages.

I have come to a different conclusion about the case that most on Craig’s blog. The difference is we see different facts in the same material.

I cannot give you all the answers in this case if I have to work like a dog for every little fact that I know you guys miss. But I think I can help you how to look for them.

Now do the exercise on my comment 14 Sep, 2012 – 2:30 am. I think you will find the solution quickly. If you don’t, ask me and I will help.

When you solved the two paragraphs I will give you a full time-line of everything that happened at the KlaraNärpolisstation that will prove to the most fanatical Assange supporter that Anna Ardin was not present during Sofia’s interview. I have killed one zombie-fact.

I worked really hard to fix a time-line, with comments, interview excerpts, the lot. Now you have to work a little.

Thank you for devoting your very short comment all to me. I feel I’ve finally made it now.

I think I know the problem here. You are a superhero disguised as a semi-retired taxi-driver and no one will give you the credit you deserve and sorely crave. Maybe you’re just not ramming it home enough.. I don’t know.

While this case is certainly a legal matter, this blog is not a legal process – it’s just a place for people to meet and share ideas. In fact it’s a great place. But it’s not a legal place. No one here is subject to any constraints of legal practice. Maybe that’s why it’s such a great place.

Your tigress-like concern for Julian’s welfare should make his mother jealous. But you are not his mother, nor are you his friend.. Not even a well meaning acquaintance. You’re a taxi-driver. Whatever misgivings you have concerning his personal conduct and legal course of action are, of course, completely impertinent. It’s Julian’s business, not ours – but we are free to gossip, speculate, conjecture and theorise. All under the generous auspices of Craig Murray.

You gave me a somewhat incomplete account of either a fictitious or real incident involving the gang rape of a teenage girl. I’m not sure what point you are trying to illustrate. That men do bad things? That girls are victims of terrible crimes? You might be simply trying to explain what motivates you. Like Batman.

Now this matter of you being a witness has been retold here a number of times but I don’t see the relevance to anything. Does this make you an expert in this case? I can’t see how witnessing one detail qualifies you to expound on the forensic validity of other unrelated details. Or is it just a reminder that you are inside the circle and we are not?

Yes, I agree that the world is full of naked Emperors, but running around in soiled underpants screaming “Enough is enough!” is not a good look either. It’s just weird.

The cotrrect audio recording of the interview will eventually bring out who was and who was not present that day.
What? no audio recording equipment in the police station?

jeez, lets talk about it a little longer, cause it matters so much that it will all be dismissed if it ever comes to court that is and if it is seen in a non partial non political way.
Then Goran can go back to looking for other socialist party related sex crimes to solve. Julian Assange is imprisoned now by the stoic unprofessional behaviour of Ms Nye, who wanted to sit in during the London High court proceedings, but could not see fit to act on behalf of the two woman,the Swedish state, or the accused.

Not that Goran would have any problems with the Swedish justice system or its faults, that seems secondary to him as a Swede, why? does he not care how his abysmal public prosecutor dishes out her kind of justice?
Indeed, the question has to be asked, would a man have behaved differently in her position?

Rudling, Anna Ardin’s complaint was filed at 16.31 By by that time the police must have heard more of her story than the single sentence she told Boström about on the phone. You’re right that what she told Donald Boström doesn’t prove she was present at Krans’s 16.21 interview, but it doesn’t disprove it either. Like before, she may not have told him everything.

It’s a fact that she went to a police station where a friend of her worked. Linda Wassgren who handled Anna Ardin’s case was thereby handling a case concerning a colleague’s friend. Irmeli Krans who was given Sofia Wiléns case was handling the case of a friend’s friend. Those emotional ties must have made it difficult to remain neutral.

Read this article Göran (it’s in Swedish, unfortunately).http://www.dn.se/insidan/insidan-hem/poliser-medger-grupptryck
It about strong peer pressure among the police and how unwilling colleagues are to report each other. If Linda Wassgren found out that Anna Ardin was present during the interview by Irmeli Krans with Sofia Wilén, there’s no guarantee she’d report it.

To me it matters little if she was present. The two women had talked before they went to the police, presented their problem together, and soon afterwards got the same lawyer/målsägarbiträde. The have had plenty of time to hear each other’s stories and emphasise similarities even if they were separated for some of the interviews. Remember that those interviews were mostly about telling their story, not about being confronted with tricky questions by someone trying to find inconsistencies.

For example – to finally get back on track – no police interviewer asked Anna Ardin why she didn’t warn Sofia Wilén, or why she didn’t ask him to leave earlier etc. She may have to answer all those question if it ever goes to trial, so perhaps she’s just happy with the delay. The lawyer Borgström knows this too, and is just as happy. Otherwise he should have urged the prosecutor to pop over to London and interview Assange a long time ago. It’s after all no more difficult for the prosecutor to take a two hour flight to London than the three hour fast train to Stockholm.

Regarding the use of ‘victimhood’ as a means to discredit the innocent, it’s not just Sweden that is in the grip of Marxist-Feminist fascism, this particular evil subversion is endemic throughout the western hemisphere, even contaminating the vox populi, which is the point of propaganda.

Here is an actual quote from a ‘police report’ that is currently in the local Isle of Wight County Press:

“We were also pleased with Bestival’s teenage management system as no sexual assaults or serious crimes were reported to have affected underage victims.”

“Now we have been to the police and Sofia told her story; and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence.”… ”I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar”. [from Goran’s ‘two paragraphs’]

Well, I’m probably missing something absolutely enormous and since this is a treasure-hunt, I’m sure you will enlighten us when you see fit – but if someone said that to me, I would assume that they had been sitting in the same room as they person to whom they were referring.

“… and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence…”

This suggest temporo-spatial continuity, does it not? I mean, I’m not a legal eagle or whatever, I’m a writer (of mainly fiction!), and if I wrote that dialogue in a story, I would be trying to convey the vignette to the readers that the two characters were in the same space at the same time.

I haven’t read all the stuff, though, as you seem to have done. But if you’re positing those two paragraphs as being emblematic or key, then that would be my interpretation, as a reader, of what she is alleged to have said in the extract you gave.

I thought I asked a simple question about interpretation of 2 paragraphs. Let’s take out stuff that is not in important for the question. The women had talked to each other prior, not important. Peer pressure, not important. Why didn’t warn Sofia (had no reason. The info was supplied on 20th Sep) Friendship with IRmeli, not important. We can talk about all that another time.
Later we can talk about how important this. Let’s stick to the question and pretend it important.

Now. Craig says this does seem to indicate very plainly that Anna WAS in the room when Sofia told police her story – I can see no other possible interpretation.” Craig is of the opinion that Donald statement places in Sofia’s interview some time after 16.21.

You disagree and you say the comment in itself does not prove that Anna was in during the interview. Are you 100% sure?

I agree with you. Donald’s statement does not put Anna in with Sofia during interview.

The women arrived at 14:00. Sofia’s interview starts at 16:21. Approximately when was Anna’s statement uttered according to you and what do you base your conclusion on?

Jimmy “it’s not just Sweden that is in the grip of Marxist-Feminist fascism” – no, it is you inventing ridiculous labels designed to reflect your hatred of what you describe as ‘feminists’ and I think you should read some facts, look at some history and free yourself from this nonsense. I share Nuid’s concern for you.

Goran, I would agree with Suhayl’s interpretation, on the whole. But this is subjective, isn’t it?

Ardins phone record for that day could tell what she was doing during Sofias 16.21-18.40 interview with Krans. Perhaps she was just as eager to leave the police station and start phoning friends to spread her version if the story.

@Suhayl Saadi They arrived at the police station much earlier than 16.21. They may have been in the same room telling their story before the 16.21 interview, but perhaps not during that particular interview.

“Goran, I would agree with Suhayl’s interpretation, on the whole. But this is subjective, isn’t it?”

Orb has since summarised it well. That is the point: we can’t say ‘on the whole’, without the risk of erring. It is the parts that are important here. The devil is in the detail and Suhayl as a writer should understand that.